Crisis Management on the Korean Peninsula and Regional Security

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5281/93wcm171

Keywords:

Korean Peninsula, New Cold War, regional security, bloc formation, trilateral security, revisionist bloc

Abstract

The Korean Peninsula has emerged as a focal point in the broader geopolitical competition between the U.S. and China, often characterized as the “New Cold War”. This policy perspective paper examines the impact of increasing bloc formation on regional security, particularly the role of North Korea as a key player in the revisionist bloc with China and Russia. North Korea’s strategic value has significantly increased in this new global order, positioning it as a critical actor in the confrontation between the revisionist and liberal blocs. The paper also explores the implications of North Korea’s alignment with Russia and China on its nuclear ambitions and provocations. Additionally, the paper analyses the security responses by South Korea, Japan, and the U.S., culminating in the formation of the trilateral security consultative body (JAKORUS). While the institutionalization of this alliance is key to maintaining regional stability, its sustainability hinges on public support and continued diplomatic cohesion amidst shifting domestic political landscapes. This paper contributes to the discourse on crisis management and security strategies in the Indo-Pacific region under the evolving New Cold War dynamics.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

  • Jaechun Kim, Sogang University

    Jaechun Kim is a political scientist trained at Yale University (MA in International Relations; M.Phil. in Political Science; Ph.D. in Political Science). Before joining Sogang GSIS, he worked for Yale University as lecturer for the Department of Political Science and Yale Center for the International and Area Studies (YCIAS). Earlier in his career, he had worked for the National Assembly of Korea as legislative assistant and the Bankers Trust Company as credit analyst. Since early 2003, he has been advising ISR (International Strategic Reconciliation) Korea as board member and executive director. His research interests include International Relations Theory, U.S. Foreign Policy Making, International Security and Peace, and Intelligence Policy. His recent publications deal with intelligence policy of the U.S. during the Cold War era to secretly undermine democratically elected governments and the Democratic Peace scholarship. At Sogang, he offers courses on International Relations, International Security and Peace, International Political Economy, Research Methods, and American Politics and Society.

References

Campos, R. G., Heid, B., & Timini, J. (2024). The economic consequences of geopolitical fragmentation: Evidence from the Cold War [Working paper]. Banco de España & arXiv.

CBS News. (2024, June 19). Putin-Kim Jong Un summit sees North Korean and Russian leaders cement ties in an anti-U.S. show of solidarity. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/putin-kim-jong-un-meeting-north-korea-russia-anti-us-solidarity-ukraine-war

Cull, N. J. (2008). The Cold War and the United States Information Agency: American propaganda and public diplomacy, 1945–1989. Cambridge University Press.

Friedberg, A. L. (2023). A world of blocs. Center for Strategic and International Studies. https://www.csis.org/analysis/world-blocs

Fukuyama, F. (1992). The end of history and the last man. Free Press.

Global Times. (2024, February 4). Xi meets Putin, stressing strategic coordination to better tackle external interference. https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202202/1251396.shtml

Goddard, S. E. (2023). Embedded revisionism: Networks, institutions, and challenges to world order. International Organization, 77(4), 663–693. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818323000279

Jones, S. G. (2022). Three dangerous men: Russia, China, Iran and the rise of irregular warfare. W. W. Norton.

Kroenig, M. (2020). The return of great power rivalry: Democracy vs. autocracy from the ancient world to the U.S. and China. Oxford University Press.

Kupchan, C. A. (2022). Multipolarity and the future of global order [Discussion paper]. Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/report/multipolarity-and-future-global-order

Lake, D. A., & Morgan, P. M. (Eds.). (1997). Regional orders: Building security in a new world. Pennsylvania State University Press.

Leoni, Z. (2024). Back to bloc politics? From the Cold War to the new type of Cold War. In A new Cold War: US–China relations in the twenty-first century (pp. xx–xx). Bristol University Press.

Mearsheimer, J. J. (2019). Bound to fail: The rise and fall of the liberal international order. International Security, 43(4), 7–50. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00342

Mearsheimer, J. J. (2021, October 19). The inevitable rivalry: America, China, and the tragedy of great-power politics. Foreign Affairs. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2021-10-19/inevitable-rivalry-cold-war

Pisciotta, B. (2023). Regional and global revisionism: Russia and China in a comparative perspective. The International Spectator, 58(2), 120–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2023.2194161

Schweller, R. L. (1994). Bandwagoning for profit: Bringing the revisionist state back in. International Security, 19(1), 72–107. https://doi.org/10.2307/2539149

Sterling-Folker, J. (2017). Revisionism in international relations. In O. Fioretos, T. G. Falleti, & A. Sheingate (Eds.), The Oxford research encyclopedia of politics. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.495

The Korea Times. (2024, May 16). Russia, China oppose 'military intimidation' against N. Korea by U.S., allies: Report. https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/world/20240516/russia-china-oppose-military-intimidation-against-n-korea-by-us-allies-report

Walt, S. M. (1981). Alliances in a unipolar world [Unpublished manuscript]. Harvard University.

Downloads

Published

08/02/2025

How to Cite

Kim, J. (2025). Crisis Management on the Korean Peninsula and Regional Security. Journal of International and Prospective Studies, 1(1), 85-90. https://doi.org/10.5281/93wcm171

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 > >>